I see the legal point. Everything else about it strikes me as so unfair, to everyone involved, no matter how the ruling came down that it's difficult to think of an option with a superior outcome.

It was the employers problem, not the employees, and did hint at sexual harassment, since it threatened and in fact removed the ladies employment, during a depression none the less, because the boss had inappropriate feelings.

He couldn't quit though, given the nature of the work, so what else could have been done. (Provided he found himself unable to control his feelings.)

It sucks all the way around, but I have to agree that it seems like the only thing that might work.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 536600

Actually, he asked her to wear less revealing clothes and apparently she did not, at least not to the required extent?

I don't see why women (and men) cannot be required to wear non-revealing, even non-flattering clothes as a condition of employment. It's a bit Sharia-ish, but that's the reason that provision is in Sharia law. I am not going that far, I do not require women to wear hijab, but the workplace is not the same as the general public. She can wear revealing clothes, just not at his workplace. She continued to wear revealing clothes, she got fired. Fine.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30670070

Clothes are expensive. All my clothes "fit". If I had to go out and buy a set of baggy too big for me clothes because my boss was a 53 year old pervert, I wouldn't be able to afford it.

Women are shaped like women, surprise! The report doesn't say she was flashing her cleavage about, just that her clothes were tight fitting. Maybe we should all wear potato sack dresses?

In these end times I believe the people will be asking for sharia law. How foolish. Even many muslims are not happy with it as it is merely someone's interpretation of the quran.

This is how it is going: false flag attacks happen, people call to be more tightly controlled and monitored. Things will get worse and eventually they will ask for sharia law perhaps.

The Dentist was sexually attracted to her and he crossed the line by his statements. So to cut his liability, he fired her for being too sexually attractive to him. Interesting.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2146063

Interesting that the court upheld it.

Times are finally changing.

Quoting: BlueSage 13

The management should be the ones dropping off the payroll for even mentioning it. Employee to employee is definitely ok but management has no business in those affairs.

That's exactly what the Union would do and she would get retroactive backpay. The offending manager will probably get demoted or at LEAST moved to a different facility.

Quoting: krosty

It's a dental office. They work in very close proximity to each other. She wears very tight fitting clothing even when he said not to? Hell no. Kind of glad the broad took this to court and lost too...doesn't happen very often.

I applaud the justice system in this case and hope and pray it leads to more cases like this.

"He later told [her] husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her."

This sounds to me like a man of high integrity and character... And she worked for him for 10 years. Why then, did she start changing her wardrobe into something more flirty, even after he asked her not to?

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting...

"He later told [her] husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her."

This sounds to me like a man of high integrity and character... And she worked for him for 10 years. Why then, did she start changing her wardrobe into something more flirty, even after he asked her not to?

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting...

Quoting: TheBiss

Someone with some common sense. It's rare these days. :)

Stick it to the entitlement freaks.

:vote:

My magic is both from Source and Soul. I love everything for what it is...a means to an end. I love the fact we are all puzzle pieces to a Grand Master Design.

Oh God, where art though? Why must our souls be shards, is it a dirty trick or lesson or a test?

"He later told [her] husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her."

This sounds to me like a man of high integrity and character... And she worked for him for 10 years. Why then, did she start changing her wardrobe into something more flirty, even after he asked her not to?

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting...

Quoting: TheBiss

Come to think of it...her man was some worhtless asshat probably and not giving her what she needed...which she hoped to find in an office romance.

Really getting a lot of respect for this man and I don't even know the fella.

while i agree that any business owner should fire anyone they see unfit or a deterrent that would cause a company to act differently than normal; it's stupid if you stop to think about it. Basically this is the Muslim approach to a situation. You're turning your inability of self control into a legal issue of female attractiveness.STUPID....

Quoting: usagi yojimbo

Yup.

Talk about retarded....not surprising the xtian nuts on here agree with this.

Hmmm... Let's see. She was wearing tight clothing to work despite his objections, texting him about personal matters, including her relationship with her husband, and somehow he knew she was having sex infrequently. At the very least, I'd call that less than professional behavior.

Fraternizing with superiors has always been a risky career move, even if done with honest and innocent intentions.

The key to all this though is that his wife worked in the same office.

Reading between the lines, I'm betting the only reason the subject of his bulging pants came up is because his wife noticed and called him out on it. I imagine it was his wife who insisted he reprimand this woman for her tight-fitting work wardrobe. Ultimately, it was his wife who demanded she be fired.

I'm sure in the end all this made for quite a tense and uncomfortable work environment. Something had to change.

Honestly, I think I have to go with the wife's instincts on this one. She and this other woman worked together in her husband's office for 10 years, but it was only near the end that the wife began to feel threatened.

I don't believe this was a case of petty jealousy on the wife's part. I'd say she picked up on some very viable warning signs that this other woman truly posed a threat and acted to defend her marriage and family.

I agree with this post 100% (why the heck don't you sign up so I can plus rep you for this excellent analysis?)

If anything, she was harassing him.Subtly. Like topping from the bottom.

Hmmm... Let's see. She was wearing tight clothing to work despite his objections, texting him about personal matters, including her relationship with her husband, and somehow he knew she was having sex infrequently. At the very least, I'd call that less than professional behavior.